Because there are no articles about big companies having money transfer problems with their suppliers.
The complains are about the "buy now pay 90 days later" part, not about the actual money transfer.
The complains are about the "buy now pay 90 days later" part, not about the actual money transfer.
I would imagine the suppliers of Wirecard do see it as a problem that the $2B WireCard said it has in the bank did not exist. In a blockchain setup, they would have known it.
Ducking for "supplier" and "insolvency" brings up quite a lot of stuff about this topic:
And if you think that you can "lock bitcoin" into an account to avoid this, you obviously don't know much about how these things work. Hint: you can also "lock dollars" today, it's called "escrow". But it wasn't used in WireCard (I take your word for it, I don't know the case).
Explained like I'm five: BMW will not accept it's bitcoin being locked for 90 days, so that it's supplier can be sure it will receive it's pay. Because if BMW would have accepted such a thing, it would pay today, not 90 days later. So crypto doesn't solve any problem here, because BMW doesn't want this problem solved.
And today, the supplier would use "factoring" so that it can receive the money instantly, instead of 90 days later, and the bank which provides the factoring service will make sure to take it's money from BMW later. Hint: you need capital to be able to provide factoring, since it involves credit risk, so crypto can't replace that either directly (it could with some fancy smart contracts that pool liquidity and yield)
BMW will not accept it's bitcoin
being locked for 90 days
Usually, one is "paid" when "the money is in the bank", right?
And this is what happens here. The initial step is to create a bank and then "payments" happen there.
As for how to pay someone who is not "customer" of this bank, see my answer to this question: